I am trying to figure out as an impartial person why scientists say there is no evidence for design.
I think species should have evolved first with only one eye. After realizing that one eye cannot create depth perception, nature would have generated another eye following thousands of years of evolution. We know this is not true. Someone or something already knew that one eye would not be enough.
Please tell me what is wrong with my theory?
60 comments
How would anything know about depth perception if it can't perceive depth ?
I just realized that my argument blows any design argument out of the water, I pat myself on the back.
"Please tell me what is wrong with my theory? "
Well, for one, what you have there is a poorly thought out hypothesis ...
Also, EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
I'll be the token "good cop" here for a change and note that the poster at least seems to be genuinely stating what seems (to him) to be a fair question and inviting an explanation of why it might be wrong, rather than brashly accusing those more educated than him of being wrong no matter what. In other words, this post reflects ignorance, but not arrogance. That's a distinct step up from most creationist/ID posts.
However, I will also add that while this poster seems to be trying to tackle the subject seriously, he is reasoning on an extremely childish level, including the hilarious anthropomorphization of nature (Mother Nature?) "realizing" the need for depth perception and purposefully endowing creatures with a second eye. Either he is very young, or he is mentally deficient, or his education has been very stunted (or possibly two or more of the above).
PZ must be annoyed.
Octopi DID evolve with one eye.
And one eye can create depth perception, witness my cat can jump distances and can fetch her toy quite well.
People who have lost an eye learn another way to measure depth.
So the reasoning is still flawed.
"I am trying to figure out as an impartial person why scientists say there is no evidence for design." Because it's not a scientific issue, but a philosophical one ?
There is no such thing as design - there are only things, millions of them, which we perceive as related to each other or as made up of related parts. Design is an idea we import into what we study, in order to have a framework within which we can study those things in an orderly, & so, an informative, manner.
The orderliness people see depends on their POV - the Milk Miracle of the god Ganesh is of no importance to most Christians or Muslims, so they ignore it; just as so-called Eucharistic miracles matter only to Catholics. And where a human might see design, a dog might see none. What doesn't fit, is overlooked.
That's why.
I think your "theory" is missing a few words.
I'll tell you what they are... the words you are missing are "out of my", as in out of your depth.
Consider doing some basic research before you spout off.
to be fair I (along with most of you fine fellows, I am sure) read PZ's answer.
it was very good, of course, but how many of you knew (or even guessed) it was the confluence of sets of interacting genes that turn on the pax6 domain?
not many, I'll wager...
"I am trying to figure out as an impartial person why scientists say there is no evidence for design."
Uh, because there isn't any evidence for design.
Tell me the difference between a "designed" universe and a naturally occurring one. How does one spot "design"?
"I think species should have evolved first with only one eye."
Multicellular organisms tend to have symmetry so why would you expect only a single eye to evolve first?
"After realizing that one eye cannot create depth perception, nature would have generated another eye following thousands of years of evolution."
Wouldn't it be easier to simply evolve with two eyes to begin with, the same as with two legs or arms (assuming the species isn't an insect or something)?
"We know this is not true. Someone or something already knew that one eye would not be enough."
Uh, yeah. Not quite.
"Please tell me what is wrong with my theory?"
All of it.
Dear (unknown,)
Everything.
Love, the internet!
Not fundie, he seems to genuinely want to know what is wrong with ID, and so he went to a proper source on evolution, other than, say, AiG. Nowhere is there any name calling or other fundie bullshit.
One of the earliest things to evolve in the animal kingdom is bilateralism: two body halves that are mirror images of each other. Virtually all animals with the exception of sponges and jellyfish, are bilateral. Bilateralism developed first; then eyes. A better question would be not why we have two eyes, but why don't we have two livers and two hearts?
Two eyes would be expected in bilaterally symmetrical animals. Besides there are animals with more than two eyes.
I am trying to figure out as an impartial person why scientists say there is no evidence for design.
Because there is no evidence.
As mentioned several times before, the word 'bilateralism' is the one you're looking for. Also, it is important to learn the difference between genotypes and phenotypes.
The genes involved in the development of the eye are not found in the genotype twice. Instead, the set of genes that control the morphology of the body activate the "eye-genes" to produce eyes in (in our case) two different locations. The hedgehog gene set including a gene named Sonic the Hedgehog (tee hee) is a very important factor in the morphology of animals.
The eye did not evolve twice for each animal. Once it existed, the number of eyes could vary with relative ease compared to the whole development process of the eye.
About the hedgehog genes:http://hedgehog.sfsu.edu/
About holoprosencephaly (a mutation in Sonic the Hedgehog):http://www.holoprosencephaly.net/Holoprosencephaly
I feel bad, its a genuine question.
I mean, the last line is "What's wrong with my theory?". The Theory itself is unscientific, but the methodology is flawless. Its peer review.
I can explain. There is a double invention of light detection. In the radiata light detection is a simple affair and they often have "one" organ that can be classed as an eye. The same is seen in early bilatarata animals. Things like worms. However these began to split up as these animals got bigger and diversified. Hell during the cambrian (and even now) there are animals with more eyes than one. The supposed advantage is depth of field which increases survival and ofcourse binocular vision.
Our eyes are related to the "fish" eye, which was a different form of evolution to the "standard" eye (Most animals have compound eyes). The fish eye strategy was acuity of vision rather than width of vision. So they could see far, but not wide. So they were better at finding prey, particularly since these eyes developed at a time when a lot of animals did not have "eyes". Basically it was an arms race at around the time that "invertebrates ruled the sea" (Giant Freaking Scorpions The Size of Cars lived in it, the only descendants from this era left are the lobster). Remember evolution is forced from competition.
There is no "nature" direction of the events of evolution. Evolution is a case of what works not a case of what works best.
"A better question would be not why we have two eyes, but why don't we have two livers and two hearts?"
Because you're not Time Lords? =P
Congratulations on having an enquiring mind, and the intellectual courage to speak up.
"Please tell me what is wrong with my theory?"
That isn't a theory.
Almost all life forms develope symetrically from the centre, even plants, so: This being the most common seems odd to you, why? I'll tell you why, because you people have decided only you know whats likely or common or 'irreducibly complex'. Without any research, any study or any qualifications you fundies have decided your uneducated opinions are infinately more valid then centuries of skilled scientific understanding.
There is NOTHING that says there has to be one eye before a pair shows up, nothing but idiotic anti-science fantasies.
Hovind tried this with half T-Rexs walking around, no, he did! He thought that was something that had to happen without a creator, "a half a T-rex right down the middle" says Hovind " that's the only way evolution could work according to science" Hovind insisted " Isn't that stupid?" Hovind snarked
Yes, real stupid, that why it's a creationist argument.
"Please tell me what is wrong with my theory?"
Everything.
"what is wrong"
No depth perception.
Then the same would have had to occur with our ears, our arms, legs lungs, you see where I'm going. Now. It sounds pretty stupid, right?
Meh'ed
He doesn't understand, but he is no fundie. The answer, of course, is bilateral symmetry; the body copies both sides from the same template, and the eyes evolved after this.
Oh, so many things are wrong, anonymous idiot. It seems likely that the first genetic development in that is the division into bilateral symmetry, which most animals have. Then whatever developed on one side also develops on the other side.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
